درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. Abstract The following paper will present the theory and possibilities of implication of the phenomenon of civil disobedience understood as one of the most powerful and most effective tools of democratic society when it comes to implementing the necessary and indispensable changes required for the improvement of the political domain and the social public sphere.   In the first part I will present the narrow but orthodox and widely discussed definition of civil disobedience presented by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice (1971). Given such a definition, as well as the major conditions under which the actions undertaken in the name of civil disobedience can be justified, I will focus my analysis on two major aspects of the discussed notion.   Firstly, I will discuss civil disobedience, which is in its essense an unlawful act, paradoxically expresses the highest respect for the positive law by the person performing the civilly disobedient act through one’s submission to the judgment of the law which is an object of one’s protest. This way, civil disobedience presents itself as the phenomenon which, not having a legal recognition (not being legalized), holds super-legal force required to impose the changes on the unjust legal system or on the particular unjust regulation.   Secondly, I will point out that civil disobedience, as a public act performed by the people (the subjects of the particular law), expresses the will of the people and, therefore, it can not be used (by themselves) in the ways contradictory to their best self-interest but always supported by the “the commonly shared sense of justice” (Rawls). From this premise I conclude that the universal human rights, as thier supporters claim, are one of the main ends of the political activism in the recent decade and should be advocated in the civilly disobedient manner.   In the last part I will contrast the Rawlsean definition with a much broader and more relevant understanding of civil disobedience when it concerns today’s globalizing world. In this world, the nation-states cease to be the only political actors when confronted with the transnational public sphere, and, therefore, the understanding of civil disobedience as a transversal arena of public dissent presented by Roland Bleiker (2000) is more appropriate. In this definition civil disobedience becomes, not only a political instrument of particular subjects of a particular society, but it also becomes a tool for the international mobilization of means and of people in the name of presenting and imposing the respect for the universal human rights despite the national borders and societal paradigms. 

Environmental risks and conflicts in the framework of the relations between countries and subsequently their role-playing in interaction and collaboration or conflicts and struggles between political actors especially in the level of states have reproduced serious discussions and disputes on the environment, security, and power which are interpreted as environmental geopolitics or ecopolitics by modern political geography. Geographically, the Persian Gulf is a semi-enclosed sea that has a very low capacity of self-dredging in comparison to that of high seas; hence, it retains the pollutants for longer periods of time. Some of its environmental problems arise from the various activities of the people residing along the northern and southern shores. If the situation is exacerbated by the factors such as oil and its subsequent pollutions, militarism and its subsequent destruction, desalination of seawater, and the construction of artificial islands, one can conclude that regional convergence between the countries neighboring this body of water in the process of bioregionalism would be of an essential necessity. According to the research findings, states acting in the geopolitical region of the Persian Gulf to produce power, security and to sustain them, from one hand, and to protect this shared aquatic ecosystem in the event of sustainable development, from the other hand, should mobilize all collective cooperations and operationalize the bioregionalism in regional and supranational scales.

In recent years, we witnessed the use of laser weapons in naval conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Conflicts that are not armed and under the laws of hostilities and the rights of war are not considered, and the use of laser weapons in them violates the principles of proportionality and necessity in international humanitarian law. Based on the Fourth Protocol of 1995 of the 1980 on Conventional Weapons and Article 86 of International Customary Humanitarian Law, the use of blinding and permanently blinding laser weapons is prohibited. Based on Article 36 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977, the governments in the production and use of new weapons should ensure that they are not prohibited from the point of view of international rules.the use of laser weapons in the aforementioned maritime conflicts is a violation of international obligations and has a criminal nature, and according to Article 2 of the 2001 international responsibility plan of governments, it causes the international responsibility of the governments that use it. The main goal of this research is to analyze the international responsibility of governments in using laser weapons in maritime conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Therefore, by using an applied research with a descriptive-analytical method to collect the data obtained through library studies and field investigation, we have sought to realize this goal. The result of the research showed that laser weapons are a violation of international obligations in the field of intimidation, unnecessary pain and suffering, use by terrorist groups, intelligent murder,violation of the right to life and the right to reproduction. humanitarian rights, human rights and mandatory rules and universal obligations are international and are considered an international violation and cause the international responsibility of governments.

During its historical life, the Caspian Sea has always been a safe place for many races, people, and governments. Unfortunately, humanity does not appreciate this valuable water zone and steps away consciously or unknowingly on the path to its destruction and demolition. Taking the path in this way is equal to obliterating the roots of the present generation and future generations. With the aim of evaluating the environmental security structure of the Caspian Sea, this research examines a new legal framework for this water zone. Moreover, the research also argued that the Caspian requires effective political and legal decision-making to achieve its ideal state both environmentally and economically or socially. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Caspian Sea was dominated by the two governments of Iran and the Soviet Union. The intense asymmetry between power and resources between the two countries led to the unofficial and actual control of the region in the hands of the Soviet Union.

On 15 February 2012, two Indian nationals aboard the St. Antony, an Indian fishing ship, were killed allegedly as a result of gunshot wounds following a confrontation with the Enrica Lexie, an Italian merchant ship, in international waters, off the Indian coast. The nature of the confrontation has been in contention. Enrica Lexie was traveling from Singapore to Egypt accompanied by six Italian navy marines. Enrica Lexie began firing at India's Exclusive Economic Zone because they thought pirate boats attacked them. Indian Navy detained the Enrica Lexie and two Italian navy Marines were arrested on charges of murder of two Indian fishermen. This incident caused the dispute between India and Italy over criminal jurisdiction, functional immunity of Italian navy marines, and the practice of arming merchant ships. They refer this dispute to arbitration and finally, Tribunal issued its award. This paper via the descriptive-analytical method, exploring existing documents, conventions, and customary international law shows that criminal jurisdiction over Italian merchant ships at EEZ belongs to the flag state. Most countries permit and even force to arm their flag merchant ships to fight against pirates, so this practice becomes a rule of customary international law. As a result, actions of these Italian marines are attributed to Italy as a governmental act, and state officials are entitled, in principle, to functional immunity from foreign jurisdiction regarding their ‘official’ acts, i.e., when acting in their official capacity.

The crime of piracy as the oldest international crime has emerged in a modern way in recent years. In addition, piracy is one of the first and main crimes that have been subject to universal jurisdiction. Today, this crime has moved away from its classic way and has progressed to the point of a transformation. This has caused the United Nations Security Council, as the main pillar of maintaining international peace and security, to deal with it many times by issuing resolutions. Despite continuous efforts to prosecute the perpetrators of piracy in domestic courts, the international community has not been able to effectively deal with this phenomenon, because states are facing problems to suppress piracy, including the increasing human rights norms. For this purpose to fight against piracy, new and potential solutions have been proposed, including the establishment of a special international court, referring piracy to the International Criminal Court, as well as dealing with the crime of piracy as a terrorist crime through anti-terrorist conventions. In this regard, according to outcomes of this research, combat to modern piracy in the International Criminal Court can be considered the most effective and efficient way. Compiled with a descriptive and analytical method, by setting this outcome as a hypothesis and examining the characteristics and the limitations of combat to this crime, new and potential solutions of combat to impunity of modern piracy, especially in International Criminal Court, has been discussed.

There is an urgent need for methods by which people and communities of faith peacebuilding and human rights development. This paper argues for a holistic understanding of peacebuilding that includes security of life, a guarantee of subsistence, and the pursuit of other fundamental human rights. This need is especially acute in countries of rising instability or post-conflict rebuilding. More and more countries face a downward spiral of instability even though many leaders and bodies seek to reverse this trend. Sadly, even among those countries that emerge from conflict, one-half revert to conflict within five years. Hence the question this paper addresses is, “How shall people and communities of religious conviction be effectively engaged in a peacebuilding and human rights process?” <br />This people factor is too little understood, even though the role of citizens in transitional states has long been acknowledged as essential for just and sustainable change. For peace accords and international conventions, in and of themselves, do not make peace or deliver human rights. Neither does the arrival of international peacekeepers nor the speeches of clerics and political leaders. While these developments are helpful stimuli, real human peace and security derives from community-based initiatives that create a “positive deviance” for peaceable, rights-oriented living vis-à-vis governments and other forces.  <br />Thus this paper will hypothesize a methodology whereby citizens engage religious institutions, governments (local and national), and international change agents to transform conflict into promising peace and rights. It will identify common peacebuilding principles operating across sectors of human development, security, and rights-oriented work. These sectors may include at least the following: health, conservation, education, security, labor, spirituality, and corporate social responsibility. <br />This paper also seeks to hone a typology of human rights and peacebuilding challenges facing countries of instability and post-conflict rebuilding. Categories may include at least the following: stages and types of conflict, fragile and failed states, overlooked populations, ethnic and racial discrimination, transnational politics and justice, natural resource and wealth distribution, and social capital.

The “Black Lives Matter” civil rights movement has left profound effects on the international approach of the US government toward human rights. This movement reached its peak in 2020 and profoundly affected culture, politics, and policy making in the US. The two major parties reacted differently – the Democrats showed support but Republicans opposed it. These reactions help us analyze the US international policy toward human rights. US human rights policy has been embedded in the theory of “American exceptionalism”, which considered US the best incarnation of human rights and its interests as a superpower equal to its protection. But the Black Lives Matter movement challenges this narrative and claims that human rights violations are an untold part of this story. The Democrats have adopted a new approach to American exceptionalism in response which considers The US to have an exceptional potential to embody human rights values but this potential is yet to be realized. Joe Biden has also prioritized human rights more than his predecessors since 1980s by criticizing the US and also adopting harsher policies toward US allies that violate human rights. It can be predicted that the Democrats will adopt a more normative approach toward human rights in the future.

Exploiting the bed and subbed of the seas which are outside the governments’ sovereignty is always discussed since the countries severely need to these resources and the technological progress makes it possible to exploit these areas. Present study aims to respond this question that how resources of bed and subbed of the seas outside governments’ sovereignty are exploit based on law perspective, and how can analyze juridical attitude in this issue. In law perspective, according to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas, these areas are the common heritage of humanity and International Seabed Authority is responsible in this field. In Islamic jurisprudence, exploitation of properties which do not belong to a specific person and freely are in access the public is named Anfal. But the bed and subbed of the seas are not included in any of the territories such as Dar al-Harb defined by the jurists, because no government have the right to claim sovereignty over these areas, and Dar al-Kofr is not in charge of these areas either. It is necessary to act based on international treaties and customary in such a situation. It means that Dar al-Islam is committed to act in accordance with existing international treaties and customary. Even if Dar al-Islam has not accepted any treaties regarding the bed and subbed of the seas, it is committed to implement international regulations based on international customary since international customary has known the bed and subbed of the seas outside the governments’ sovereignty as the common heritage of humanity.